UKH

Can anyone explain the economics of grouse moors? We were wondering about this last weekend in the Pennines, given the huge cost of putting in gravel tracks, bridges and the like, versus seemingly very little actual income in comparison. Is it just a status thing? Maintaining a land value bubble?

The internet doesn't seem to have any quick answers, just puff pieces by the shooting lobby. And ChatGPT just offered up equivocal bluster. Can UKC do better than that?

In reply to jonny taylor:

Government subsidies for being 'guardians of the countryside'.

Posh (or at least rich) blokes paying £000's for a day pointing shotguns vaguely in the direction of some grouse.

Social status of being a grouse moor owner.

And the old adage that land only increases in value as they aren't making it any more. 

In reply to jonny taylor:

I’d be interested too. I suspect that there is a tax fudge somewhere in it too. 
I know of an estate that leases out all it’s shooting rights to an external firm so there must be enough in it for a company to pay for it and (presumably) make a profit.

In reply to jonny taylor:

The 'farming' of grouse moors has has a castrophic effect on the hare population in the Scottish Highlands. Really sad. It will only get worse. In terms of wildlife, grouse moors are deserts!

In reply to jonny taylor:

https://www.dawnay.co.uk/sporting/prices-availability/

This should give you an idea of the incomes involved. 

In reply to jonny taylor:

A friend of mine used to run grouse shooting for a landowner on the Welsh borders. He’s ex marines and got into it from simply knowing the farmer, having worked for him as a teenager.

I recall he said it was pure status; bankers, lawyers, etc, from London, without a hint of interest in the countryside, would pay substantial sums to come shoot. It was networking for them. Most couldn’t shoot a grouse, nor pheasant, at six yards with a shotgun, while he could shoot one at ten times that with a rifle. My friend was paid handsomely for it, but boy did he despise the clients; all except their tips.

So in short; yes, it’s lucrative.

In reply to steve_gibbs:

I’ve heard that that total weirdo Oyston who used to own Blackpool FC had a shoot up in Bowland. He’d invite all his weirdo mates, and one of the days would be a ‘how many species can you kill’, any species. Im not against shooting for the table, even for sport if it’s done sensibly (properly managed estates, eat what’s killed etc) but there is madness about. Saw a photo a few days back if 5 goshawk shot, almost 100% by a gamekeeper. 

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

BUT: this year has been really good for hen harriers in the England, iirc 140 ish fledged with 50 in Bowland (?), so this aspect looks better. And I’m hearing of hen harriers being spotted all down the Lancashire coast into the Dee estuary. Only a few years back, zero fledged in England. 

In reply to jonny taylor:

As a stand alone business they make a loss, many 6 figure losses, but if you're earning 7 figures in the city or from other investments it's a means to reduce your tax, whilst also having the status of an estate, a country seat.

In reply to jonny taylor:

I live near that estate  and a number of others - and once attended a lecture by the factor or estate manager.  I asked him about the illegal shooting of Hen Harriers.   His comment was quite simple.  "They do lots of damage to the grouse numbers".

In addition to the £23,250  per shoot in August & September there iis a Countryside Stewardship Scheme for managing moorlands which all the estates claim. .  This currently stands at £55 per hectare per annum.  (This estate has 10,500 acres).  

There are additional grants for things like 'restoration of heather moorland, removal of bracken and so on.  Put simply the grant is to maintain the moor as a grouse moor, so 'invasive', trees are also removed.

There is no requirement to put in for planning permission for things like shooting butts, or moorland tracks as these are classed as ''agricultural', and are permitted developments.

When I was a youngster, the toffs were generally English and arrived in Landrovers and walked to the shooting butts.  Now the 'customers', are  quite often from Europe or the middle east and turn up in big new Range Rovers, Mercedes off road vehicles, big Jeeps and so on.  A land rover simply wouldn't cut it now.  And of course they no longer spend the day walking up.  They spend the time driving along the nice new tracks to save their legs and time.   

In reply to Billhook:

I hope his testicles rot off slowly.

In reply to thread:

Thanks all. I hadn't realised there was quite so much money in idiots pointing shotguns around, but not surprised to hear that many estates still make a loss. Makes sense about the tax/subsidy/etc explanations, but also that it's often a loss-making thing.

One day maybe the moors will look different...

In reply to jonny taylor:
 

But at the moment there's landowner financial incentive to gain income from shooting, and the national parks/conservation bodies  love them too, because the UK contains an extremely large proportion of what is a rare 'habitat'.   Our Park, the NYMNP manages one estate at Levisham, and because they get the Stewardship Scheme Grant they must manage it exactly like a grouse moor.
Oh, the irony.

In reply to Billhook:

It's like a template on how to maintain a monoculture or species desert, the NPs are full of them. 

https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/management-of-moorland-up...

In reply to jonny taylor:

One of our local estates has their clients fly in to London by private jet then taken by big shiny helicopters up to the estate.  Two bus loads of domestic staff turn up from London the week before to staff the mansion, about the only money in to the local community is the salary of the miserable bastards who go round setting illegal traps (and legal traps that are left unchecked in an illegal manner) for small mammals and who burn the heather, and the people who make good awful access tracks willy nilly.

In reply to wintertree
 

: youtube.com/watch?v=VCN3ME-W6k0&t=126

youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8hdkMNRNA&t=91

youtube.com/watch?v=0-bkVURvGkQ&t=288

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/goshawk-raptor-queens-lan...
I chased this last one up with the then Queen's estate representitive.  I was told as no prosecutions were carried out the company which leases the estate will not have the lease suspended. However, the company which runs the shoot dismissed the apprentice gamekeeper.  Everyone knew it was not him who killed the Goshawk, but he was the scapegoat.  It caused a lot of ill feeling and hostility in the village towards the other keepers who live in various estate owned houses.

The whole of the Goathland area moorland, including the village green and several houses in Goathland are owned by the Duchy of Lancaster estates (King Charles)  

The duchy lease the moor out to a shooting company,  BH Sporting who manage the moor.

BH Sporting  rent the moor out to W&G LLP who own the shooting rights.  I guess it is they who rent the moor for shooting purposes.

W& G LLP is owned by 3 individuals - A Russian I believe, An Italian & an Englishman.  

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC401397...  Their addresses are all the same and they have offices in Hanover Sq. 

A search on google for further information about these 3 produced almost nothing.  

Its a shady business owning a grouse moor.

In reply to Billhook:

That third youtube video (shooting two owls on Whernside) reminds me of when I descended that way into Dentdale a few years ago. I was on CRoW access land but was approached by two gamekeepers in a 4x4 who tried to dissuade me from going the way I intended. They weren't aggressive as such but not exactly friendly either, suggesting that the area was a 'nature reserve' (Oh, the irony!) and that I could exit using their gravel track. I think they realised that I knew my right to be where I was but I followed their suggestion (to avoid a confrontation) until I was out of their sight and then resumed my original course. I've also experienced this 'nature reserve' line of argument from a keeper in Bowland.

In reply to jonny taylor:

Meanwhile on Dartmoor, here's a huge surprise..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/21/dartmoor-landowner-who-...

In reply to jonny taylor:

Also.. maybe the least of the problem but an issue none the less. What happens to the shot birds. If you weigh out money and roll up with your 7 other fund manager buddies in fancy cars, shoot your guaranteed 200 birds, take 3 home each few home, what happens to the 150 or so other dead birds each shoot? In a lot of cases they're put into bin bags and lobbed down a mineshaft (if any on the estate) or chucked in a ditch etc. As well as being a terrible waste of poor birds it can be a source of water pollution.

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

Its more accurate to say it has been ok.

The really good depends on the artificially low baseline due to persecution.

In reply to mondite:

Good point. Been out birding this avo, with some very brilliant and timely sightings. 

In reply to jonny taylor:

They aren't all that expensive, I have been invited a few times at a cost of £300 per gun. Never been myself but a few mates have and normally being back 30 or so birds between them. 

In reply to Dax H:

I think it depends where, when and what. I've been looking at doing some walked up rough shooting on grouse with the spaniel in Scotland and depending what estate you go to you can get it for as little as £30 a day without a guide, but that's if you're staying on that estate in the holiday lodges and it's mainly a stalking estate.

I'm no fan of big bag driven days and I'll always prefer walked up with dogs but it's not always easy to find depending where you live, and I always make sure I take home what I shoot and am very selective. Pheasant for dinner today after being out with the dog yesterday 🙂

Just in general though for everyone else the theory with shooting grouse should be there's a baseline population and any birds that are shot are "excess" to that, they shouldn't be put down as poults like pheasants, which can also be cheap or expensive to shoot depending where you go, personally I haven't paid anything this year going to as a guest on a small syndicate and then just making up numbers for them and beating.

Raptor persecution. I don't know anyone in the shooting community who condones it. I don't know anyone who would kill a raptor. I don't know anyone who sees a need to kill raptors. I don't know anyone who doesn't think people who do, and their bosses, if they work on an estate shouldn't be in jail. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list of every single person who shoots but it does seem to be the majority view, and a surprising amount of conversations I've had with people who do shoot is about how enjoyable it is to be out standing in the countryside watching raptors.

I know it's still an issue and that is something that needs to be stamped out, and rightly so, but it might actually help to have a joint effort between people who shoot and everyone else to stamp it out, just an idea because the overwhelming majority of us want the same thing there so maybe we should all work together.

Another note, predation control helps a lot of different species but that doesn't mean anyone wants to wipe out a species, and there are far but it should be done legally and ethically traps and snare shouldn't be set and left for days without checking them, if I was a land owner andy game keeper, under keeper or anyone else did that and I found out they'd be straight out the door. And there are far too many deer and they're really damaging to the land and reforestation efforts, eat them they're tasty and good for you.

Just to touch on the management of the land, for better or for worse it's been managed for hundreds of years in this way, it's part of our landscape, I don't think we should be putting in new roads through the moors just to use for shooting but as fire breaks and access roads for emergency kit they are useful. Heather burns and keepers and grounds keepers burn heather to keep it fresher for the birds and to take out excess fuels to try and stop wild fires or at least make them more manageable, it's rare a managed fire on the more gets out of control and I haven't seen any evidence that it's seriously damaging the peat layers but wild fires do.

Correlation isn't causation but Ilkley moor as an example had grouse shooting stopped in January 2018, then had a couple of pretty bad wild fires in 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/18/dismay-asnew-fire-hits-ilkley...), and then they've had wild fires every year since then.

Rambling long post I know, and I'm sure I'll get some flak but I thought some of you might appreciate another point of view on it. Have a good day guys.

In reply to jonny taylor:

I do make good use of quad bike tracks when exercising my open access rights, and the little bridges with stoat traps on them, but it makes my blood run cold, all the same. I beat once or twice a year and have a well stocked freezer as a result. I've noticed there's a distinction made amongst the shooting crowd between walked up shooting and the rich  "all the gear but no idea" crowd. Also the John Muir Trust are trying to get Scots interested in shooting deer, as they are too populous. 

There's a place for shooting but it needs to be out of the hands of the crooks.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

It's not really on the non-shooting (anti?) community to have anything to do with stamping out raptor persecution. It's wholly on the shooting community. The criminals are in your ranks. The fact that 'outsiders' have to get involved should bring nothing but a feeling of shame. 

Ilkley Moor is also one of the most accessed moorlands in the Pennines, given it's proximity to two major cities. Therefore it's not unlikely that it'll suffer more fires than anywhere else due to the amount of utter cretins who like setting fires, misusing fireworks etc. It's the same with Marsden Moor a bit further south, managed by the NT and the moorland around Wimberry, managed by the RSPB. It's no coincidence these accessible places face more hardship. Remember, Bamford had quite a major fire the other year, and that's an easily accessible  and popular spot from Sheffield. It's also managed for shooting.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Well that was an incredibly helpful comment really, you want it to stop happening but don't want to help just to moan about it and tell people who don't actually have anything to do with it they should be ashamed, excellent. I'll take that all on board to, well there isn't really anything I can do with that but hey ho.

Your right, wild fires also happen on other moors, especially when morons (also known as the general public) have ready access, my mind says that out of the 3 options (1. having loads of highly combustible fuel about, 2 managing the moors to reduce the risk or 3 banning the morons.) Option 2 should surely be the most suitable.

Also just for clarity I don't use the like.or dislike buttons on here so it isn't me that disliked your post. Have a good afternoon.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

As an outsider, how exactly would you suggest one goes about stopping it? It's been illegal to shoot raptors for decades, and despite decades of continuing activism it still happens - probably worth noting it'll be a new generation of keepers responsible for it, despite it having been illegal for their entire lifetime. Some would say it never really stopped. It's not about not wanting to help. It's about not being able to help - unless you'd like me to go around destroying some of the infrastructure that enables such killing, ladder traps and the likes. But that'd be a crime, and two wrongs don't make a right. I could also continue to speak to a brick wall by posting on social media.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I don't know what you can do to help, I'm not even sure what else I can do to stop it, that's quite literally my point rather than everyone arguing with eachother and assigning blame to people who aren't committing these crimes maybe we should all step back and try and come up with a way of trying to stamp it out.

It's an emotive subject and it's totally wrong but not all the time spent on social media I'd talking to brick walls, a podcast I used to listen to before it stopped had an episode on this because of an interaction on twitter, it's called practical measures to raptor persecution with Rob Thomas on the country gent podcast and was pretty good and informative, the Pace brothers have done a couple of episodes on it as well I think, as well as a lot of other environmental and conservation topics from shooting to farming.

I'm not defending anyone, what I'm trying to say is not all shooters are responsible for raptor persecution and the vast majority of us are totally against it and trying to stamp it out, there's also a lot of other people out there who want to see it stopped so let's sit down like adults and figure out how we can help eachother find the dicks responsible and get them put in prison where they belong, they are a very small minority that are criminals and society shouldn't have any place for them the same as anyone else committing crimes.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

Nobody is blaming any particular individual shooter, but the fact is is that it is individual shooters who use the services offered by estates that employ (and pressure, if it comes 'from above') keepers to act in a certain manner, and commit certain crimes. It's all well and good publicly denouncing raptor crime as an individual, but how do you know if the shoots you visit are clean? Because if you asked every keeper in the country if they'd ever killed a bird of prey you'd get a 100% return of 'no', but that's clearly BS. Which is why it's hard to believe when you say everyone you know is dead against it. Chances are, in a handful of cases, those words are meaningless. 

In reply to Madhatter2132:

What are "the vast majority" of shooters doing to try "to stamp it out"?

(Geniune question from someone who is partial to a bit of wild game).

In reply to Madhatter2132:

I reckon if we outlawed shooting birds for sport, the raptor persecution would sort itself out pdq.

It may also have the side benefit of increasing bio diversity and reducing flooding, if the mono culture deserts were allowed to return to nature.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

For me that one's dead easy, the shoot I've been going to doesn't have a keeper, I haven't been going to any with a keeper. But I'm an outlier with that admittedly.

One of the actions said about on the podcast I mentioned was actually not using shoots that have any history or link with raptor persecution, which out of all the people I've spoken to they don't and they've checked before hand with the evidence they can find, although admittedly I don't regularly speak to many people who shoot grouse and you are right there will be people who don't care and don't check the only thing I can do in that case like you is try and inform people and ask them if they've checked. Maybe we need a central place that shooters can check, like the raptor persecution website but without a bias just plain facts, I understand why that bias is there but it might not be helpful to the cause overall in the end.

Maybe it does need more regulation, but considering it's already illegal to kill birds of prey how effective would this be. Like I said I'm not sure of what would work that's part of why I'm talking about it from the shooting side, maybe other people have some ideas that will work because the status quo obviously doesn't, we all like different things in life and that's what makes the world go round, personally I don't agree with big bag driven days but that's why I don't so them, I shoot things to eat them or I shoot clays and targets.

I will disagree on one point though and that's blaming individual shooters, if someone shoots a raptor that individual definitely deserves the blame, if they've been pressured to it then whoever did the pressuring deserves an equal amount of blame but for different reasons.

In reply to storm-petrel:

Of the people I've spoken to, obviously not all shooters but there's a trend, one of the things is not using estates that have links to raptor persecution, I don't know of any who haven't helped investigations when the can or weren't the ones being investigated, and a lot more information out there about it. Obviously it isn't all shooters though and those are amongst other things.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I wondered how long that would take.

Yep it probably would and if we outlawed cars no one would die in RTC's.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

You wanted a solution to raptor persecution on grouse moors: I've proposed one, which I'm sure would be effective. What's yours?

In reply to Madhatter2132:

OK, so it sounds like you are one of the more responsible shooters out there, but what do you mean by, "one of the things is not using estates that have links to raptor persecution"? Do you mean estates that have actually been prosecuted? Which is not many. Estates where alleged incidents have taken place? Estates where raptors have disappeared in mysterious circumstances?

You say you don't know of anyone who hasn't helped investigations, yet this article suggests that the police get very little help.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/reports-of-raptor-killin...

To quote a few lines from the above article, the first by the Moorland Association, the second by a police inspector -

"Moorland and other shooting organizations have pledged to report suspicious incidents involving raptors to the police immediately".

"Hand and on my heart, I have never heard of a single gamekeeper or estate owner picking up the phone or writing an email to the police, saying, "I've got some information for you," says North Yorkshire police inspector Matthew Hagen, who chairs the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group, a multiagency partnership focused on prevention, enforcement, and intelligence to tackle bird crime. "They all know what is going on, and they cover it up."

The quote from the Moorland Association sounds like a woolly mission statement that not's worth the paper it probabaly isn't written on. The quote from the police inspector doesn't fill me with confidence.

The problem is that much of what goes on in the countryside goes on behind closed doors, where we the "morons (also known as the general public)" as you call us, don't get to see it.

If the shooting industry was serious about raptor persecution, they would invite us in to see what was going on. That has started to happen in places but it sounds to me like throwing us morons a few scraps to distract us from what is going on elsewhere.

What are the "other things" you mention in your final sentence?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Well I wanted one that had some sort of grounds in reality in all honesty. If you can get the grouse shooting industry shutdown go for it I won't loose a single night's sleep over it personally.

In reply to jonny taylor: Got any actual suggestions for how we might help the shooting community stop itself breaking the law?  If the walking magazines promised to do a monthly name and shame article on offending estates would The Field agree to do similar in a prominent place?

Seems like some victim blaming going on here

In reply to storm-petrel:

I'll start by addressing the morons bit thank you, that was in response to a post by mrphilipoldham at 10:21 were he used the words utter cretins in relation to wild fires on Ilkley moor, hence the also known as the general public remark. I don't think anyone who wants to get out into the countryside in general is a moron unless they do moronic things like set moorland on fire.

I like to think I'm a responsible shooter, I don't shoot what I can't or won't eat and I've got a responsibility to the animals I do kill to do it cleanly and efficiently, I'm not doing it for sport or pleasure to me that's what clays are for but I can't morally eat things like pheasant and not personally be able to dispatch them myself I think that's just wrong.

With regards to not using estates with links to raptor persecution I mean what I say, if an estate has any recent links, as in not 20 years ago, links to it at all I won't use that estate and I don't think other people should, ultimately money is probably what will stop this happening I think but an outright ban probably would also work admittedly.

I can't speak for the whole shooting community only the people I know and I've spoken to, I know several people who shoot but have active interests in birds of prey, I got a few stern words from one for climbing a route next to the nest of a peregrine falcon. Personally and of all the people I know I don't think any of us wouldn't inform the police, this is a small number of people doing it so phrases like they all know what's going on coming from the police of all people isn't going to help

There should be more open and Frank discussion about what goes on and how everything works, normal people should be able to go and see what actually goes on on these estates and like you said some are starting to do it, but for a lot of the people involved this is an entire way of life and many of them feel threatened that it's going to get taken away, rightly or wrongly.

In reply to wbo2:

That's actually not a bad idea, get it published where it's happening and hit them in the wallet.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

Well ok then, here's another one. All grouse moors to be run under licence. Any raptor poisoning, shooting or unexplained disappearances on the moor = immediate lifetime ban for the licencee with all shooting cancelled until a new licencee takes over.

How come you haven't come up with any ideas yet?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

In all honesty I'm surprised that already isn't in place, I think it should be and with how restrictive things like the general license are for pest control it wouldn't be a massive upheaval of everything to get that set up.

I'd like to see a big push from both sides on information and evidence without bias in it, certainly a clearer "hotline" for lack of a better expression for reporting, game day retailers can do more for working with estates towards a code of practice (although that would only work with estates that advertise through game day retailers) and I think we should be doing a lot more with actual checks of estates to do with working practices, tracking data and nesting sites, if we know where these birds are when they've "disappeared" (in quotes because we all know that's mostly bollocks) then there should be a bunch of boots on the ground there until the facts are established and it's either someone in prison and natural causes are determined.

There should be a strictly enforced code of conduct and practice for all matters with running the estates as shooting estates not only for the benefit of wildlife and money but also for the environment.

Collaboration is a wonderful thing my friend that's what I'm trying to say, we can all espouse a bunch of stuff to do but clearly without a joined up effort it's not working.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Also I won't do an edit to add this but we all know why regulation isn't already a thing, it's the f*****g Tories, the house of lords and the landed gentry who are basically one and the same.

There is money to be made from it, as well as status that's why it's not already regulated.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

Thank you for your honest responses on this thread.

I've decided not to get any further involved in this discussion as I promised myself I would try to avoid getting involved in anything too controversial for the sake of my mental health.

I suspect there is a lot of stuff we would agree on and plenty that we wouldn't but it has been good to hear your perspective.

I'm off for the night, need to finish up cooking dinner which unfortunately isn't the pheasant from yesterday as I ran out of time to sort it but that'll be later in the week and a good 4 meals for me and the Mrs.

It's been an interesting discussion for me today and I hope I've got some points of view and information across myself. I'll keep on doing what I can around all the issues involved which I'll admit isn't much but I can only do what I can.

If anyone is local to midlands and ever fancies getting out for a walk around a few fields to natter about it all, drink coffee and hopefully get something tasty for dinner then please get in touch, especially if you have any foraging knowledge because that's my next venture, because it is something I'm genuinely passionate about but obviously has problems but I don't think they're insuma table with open and honest conversation and sharing of ideas.

Have a good night everyone.

In reply to storm-petrel:

I've only just seen this as I signed off for the night myself.

Honesty should make the world go round really, everyone has different opinions and unfortunately sometimes it gets too heated I think a lot of the time all we have to do is step back for a minute and start again and a lot of stuff would get solved, although I am aware that's probably wishful thinking.

I know shooting has issues along with many other things and I'd dearly love to see them get sorted but it saddens me to think that some won't, I'm hoping am open an honest dialect will go some way towards some of it.

Have a good evening and keep well.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

So how are the shooters going to get the shooting representative bodies to put pressure on their other members?

A good starting point would be the moorland association and co insisting all members permit covert surveillance of raptor nests etc without notification (especially in Scotland). I mean whats the harm if they arent going to harm birds?

This is tricky since the current generation of tags only report daily or so and a raptor can cover a lot of ground in that time. So whilst there are some really obvious blackspots they generally cover a large area and its over multiple years that a pattern is established.

Generally unless the gamekeepers are really incompetent boots on ground wont be there in time.  We have seen that in how a tag went off swimming in the sea and another one got itself wrapped in lead for several years.

The flaw here is that there has been a "joined up" effort. The shooting organisations have been well represented on various committees and organisations but at best their efforts can be described as halfhearted.

If the majority of shooters are opposed then they need to make sure their organisations represent that view or, if they cant do that, then leave to demonstrate those organisations dont represent the majority.

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

Their favourite stat is that 80% of hen harriers nest on moors managed for grouse shooting. What I haven’t yet got an answer to is why 80% of grouse moors don’t have hen harriers on, given it’s their favourite habitat and so well managed (ahem!). They’d be ten a penny if that were the case, and no one would bat an eye lid about the odd one disappearing because they wouldn’t need to be so heavily monitored.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Another convenient statistic is about peregrine falcon numbers rebounding skipping over the minor detail that there was an adaption in behavior which allowed them to take tall buildings and run, or fly, with it (oh and the end of ddt use but then again the tendency for banned pesticides to appear in the hands of gamekeepers is clearly them not keeping up with laws so cant expect them to have noticed the ddt restrictions).

In what is considered traditional habitats they are still oddly (since clearly no persecution is going on!) repressed.

Admittedly the pigeon fanciers try to keep things balanced out but for whatever reason they are a dying breed so cant kill off all the townies peregrines.

In reply to jonny taylor:

It's a shame that all these townie toffs don't all go off to Ukraine to do some shooting 

In reply to mondite:

Yes, there was a post by Peak District Moorland Group (I think) at the end of last summer giving themselves a pat on the back for fledging 4 or 5 peregrines on their moors. Despite the fact pretty much every minor conurbation surround the Peak had their own peregrines fledging 3, or 4 or 5 each. Manchester, Bolton, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Sheffield and many more all with their own urban pairs successfully breeding, and out breeding the few 'natural' birds. None of them care to thank the 'city folk' for their excellent conservation efforts though  How dare the townies come and tell us how to look after our land etc etc...

In reply to jonny taylor:

I don't know about the economics of the grouse moors as a whole, but from anecdotal conversations around here with keepers, there's not much money in it. That won't be the same everywhere but certainly round the Dark Peak it's not a money maker.

The other side to this question is the environmental impact of grouse shooting, specifically driven grouse shooting (DGS). You look at any satellite picture of e.g. the Dark Peak or North York Moors and you can see where it happens. The rotational burning of the moors leave massive scars on the land. The claims that this prevents wildfires are very weak, and not much more than propaganda by the industry. The Saddleworth fire of 2018 started (and got out of control on) a DGS moor that had been regularly rotationally burnt. Similarly, wildfires on Chunal & Tintwistle got out of hand very quickly too. The "firebreaks" had no effect on the spread of those fires. If it was such an essential tool, Moors for the Future would use it as often as grouse estates do - but they rarely use it.

Claims by the industry that a moor that isn't managed for grouse shooting will be "unmanaged" are nonsense. The moors will be managed differently.

The barren monoculture that DGS requires is nothing if not depressing. The inherent criminality in the shooting industry shows no signs of abating, despite the regular claims of it being only "a few bad apples". Shooting industy bodies like BACS, GWCT and the Countryside Alliance never speak out against raptor persecution. It's often been said that if DGS came to an end, raptor persecution would end overnight. It wouldn't, but it would reduce by around 80% as that is the percentage of prosecutions for the crime that are brought against keepers.

Yes, hen harriers are fledging successfully on some grouse moors, but that's not the same as them living beyond a few years, and it certainly doesn't stop them "disappearing" on or near those same grouse moors.

I sometimes read that DGS brings "significant employment and income" to rural communities, but that's just more propaganda. There are around 3500 full time equivalent jobs in DGS in the UK, in a rural population of 10million (0.035%). It provides vanishingly little employment or income.

I've seen the stink pits on Saddleworth where 100s of pheasant carcasses are dumped after shoots, and I've seen illegal pole traps on moors round here, and I know the crime record of estates like Moscar. It's an industry always on the edge of criminality and I'd be quite happy to see it shut down. I know there are shooters out there who are opposed to these criminal practices and who shoot ethically (e.g. clean kills for the table) but there aren't enough of those folk, and there are too few keepers willing to stand outside the stockade and speak out.

In reply to Madhatter2132:

It’s clear that some, or certainly a significant sub section of the shooting industry involved in driven game birds, has a ‘problem’ with raptor persecution, see;

https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/

 The end result will be slowly more legislation and sustainable low key walked up shooting is likely to be caught up in it.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

It is odd that the, allegedly, majority aren't really pushing their representatives to, well, represent them.

Personally I dont currently opposed all shooting although I would prefer for restoration of natural balance rather than shooting where possible (eg let pine martins reestablish to control the grey squirrels) but the more the shooters representative bodies at best sit there whistling and at worse attack those organisations which actually support enforcing the law the more I tend towards harsher laws and serious enforcement.

In reply to mondite:

Not going to get any stricter laws under a Tory government. Even under a Labour government it will be difficult - not a priority issue, getting it through the House of Lords.

Although more restrictive legislation would be good, I can't see it happening any time soon.

Probably needs something like a mass protest disruption of a grouse shoot at an offending estate and one of the protesters getting shot (I'm not volunteering). Something tragic like that might galvanise enough publicity and public opinion.

In reply to ExiledScot:

This seems to be the opinion of quite a few folk I spoken to about the subject, do you have anything to back it up? If it’s true it’s a scandal that such huge amounts of the country and set aside for next to no economic benefit.

In reply to ablackett:

Only anecdotes. Mr Helmerson, former owner of Glenfeshie estate which was bucking the trend and pushing in a genuine green direction was often critical of the traditional Scottish estates, and had stated that whilst they do generate a few jobs, they add nothing overall as they were loss making. Sadly he was forced to sell as his own other profit making enterprises were struggling. The rspb and other conservation bodies tried to buy it, but failed (some politics), the new owner vows to continue it in the same direction, reforestation, reducing deer numbers and so on. 

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

This popped up in my inbox this afternoon:

https://www.birdguides.com/news/dorset-gamekeeper-pleads-guilty-to-multiple...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Do moors actually need to be managed? They seem to have managed just fine for millions of years without human intervention. Left alone nature will find its own balance though we might need to reintroduce a few predetors to do the. 

In reply to Dax H:

Getting from A (poor overgrazed etc condition) to B (self-managing) requires some work. The effects are pretty amazing though, for example Black Hill in the Peak. See pictures at bottom 

https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/projects-and-partnerships/mff

In reply to Dax H:

Unfortunately I think after so much miss (or at very least myopic) management sadly most moors do need to be managed to repair the damage.  Slightly wider remit than simply grouse moor, but "Regeneration; the rescue of a wild land" detailing the work done over the past few decades on Mar Lodge estate is well worth a read on alternative ways to run large estates with conservation as the main focus (though still a "sporting" estate).  The management is largely about creating the conditions where natural regeneration can take place.  Sounds like a lot of very hard work from the book and chatting to some of the folk working on the  estate!  

In reply to Billhook:

the Russian, CEO of a uranium mining company?:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/russian-takeover-of-uranium-... 

https://gb.wallmine.com/tsxv/roe/officer/2116508/vadim-jivov

i'd like to know what Tim the gamekeeper is up to- someone must know..

In reply to StuDoig:

Hard work, but it's hard to imagine anything I'd rather spend my days doing in the spring and summer - when the weather is nice, anyhow!  Sadly there seems to be naff all interest in regenerating the moors in my part of the country; a couple of estates have come on the market in recent years but that's seen them become more actively managed for grouse with more access tracks, more invasive signage and the mysterious bay laurel barrier I posted about last year.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

 

more 'guardians of the countryside' action in wales..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaU_DfZN4HA&

In reply to Dax H:

Most moors in the UK only exist due to management. Without draining, grazing or burning they would eventually grade into scrubby woodland, the natural climax community. The wettest areas of deep peat and the areas above the tree line would remain open, but these aren't the most productive areas for red grouse. If left to it's own devices, most areas of dry heathery moorland (which provide the best habitat for red grouse) wouldn't really exist.

In reply to magma:

Thanks for that - its a few years since i tried looking them.  As for the scapegoat lad - no idea.  

Some shady characters renting off our King!±!±!

In reply to Madhatter2132:

I can assure you that they have been burning on Ilkley since then, unless the wild fires just happen to burn in squares now.

So what's going on with the wild fires? Maybe the billions of people going up there post covid? 

In reply to wintertree:

Some of it does sound fantastic - days spent observing Hen Harrier nesting sites, hunting for dwarf birches etc at high elevations, watch grouse lecks.  I'm sure there are a fair few miserable day in sideways sleet etc and frustrating nights trying to get numpties to put out their camp fires as everything is tinder dry (and then dealing with the aftermath if fires start!).  But yes, sounds like a great job on the whole!

In reply to ablackett:

Would it be very much better in your eyes if there was an economic benefit?

In reply to Dax H:

The natural balance wouyld almost certainly return in time without active management but  we tend to be a rather impatient species and to want things now rather than waiting for them.

In reply to timjones:

What dyou mean by natural balance? As I said above, the natural balance for most moors is not moorland, its woodland. 

In reply to gaz.marshall:

In that case it would return to woodland over time, without us deciding that we had to plant and manage the type of woodland that we inagine it should be.

Nature has a knack of doing what works for nature.

In reply to Billhook:

Not quite. Most of these areas are SSSI and as such the owners have a legal obligation to manage them so that they are in "good condition" as defined by the SSSI status. Stewardship grants help towards the cost of this management.

So National Park Authorities and conservation bodies don't necessarily love shooting estates, they understand that the management they carry out helps to improve the condition of the habitat as defined by the SSSI status.

SSSI's status and conditions is a whole other argument!

In reply to timjones:

I’m not convinced that is necessarily the case. Woodland was its previous state, not necessarily the sole state of “natural balance”. Strikes me that after heavy human intervention it won’t necessarily just return to how it was centuries ago since the starting conditions are now different. Different species are now present or have a head start or favourable conditions that they wouldn’t have had millennia ago. They may well be in a position to outcompete the flora that preceded them.

Whether that’s a concern is up for debate, but the world doesn’t have a rewind button. Nature will find a balance, but it can only move forwards and work with the conditions here and now. 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

No it would return to woodland, how quickly is the debatable question. Trees already grow in inaccessible spots along cloughs, out of crags etc and outcompete the heather and grasses quite easily. Perhaps the only reason there aren't (m)any growing out in the open is the grazing that's employed as part of management. The other part of the equation is how much viable seed is in the ground, which will have reduced year on year. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Since the end of acid rain and in the main exclusion of sheep from the tops of Kinder and Bleaklow, there are literally hundreds of trees now growing. Well spaced, but ever increasing.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Based on practical experience of what happens when you fence out areas I would say that it will revert as long as we have the patience to give it time and the tolerance to let it transition through the early stages.

Both sides if the debate can get narky about the transitional stages but I believe that they all serve some purpose to one species or another.

In reply to timjones:

I think there might be a higher risk of fire during that transitional phase and with the changing climate it isnt going to be precisely the same as x hundred years ago but overall would agree about giving time and accepting that for a while at least chances are it will be scrubland.

In reply to Philb1950:

Interestingly, those trees on kinder include rhododendron and sitka, which the nt will have to manage. The issue of invasives isn't really being talked about, but shows restoration is not just a case of shutting the gate and letting nature take its course

In reply to toad:

I thought they were mainly azaleas and larch. Obviously I’m wrong. Of course if rewilding is allowed  to progress unchecked to it’s natural conclusion, the moors and the views would disappear.

In reply to toad:

Is there a discussion to be had about whether some invasives are acceptable and others less so? Rhododendrons are clearly not desirable, but I'm not familiar with the pros and cons of sitka.

In reply to Philb1950:

Tree against the sunrise on Bleaklow on Tuesday. At about 580m.

In reply to Deleated bagger:

Are they a new protest group?

In reply to Philb1950:

They are felling larch elsewhere on Kinder Estate because of phytopthera (spelling?) On the summit plateau, its sitka. They've felled some surprisingly big ones! A lot of birch and willow scrub and humongous amounts of sphagnum spreading, mostly reintroduced from plugs. I hadn't been up there for a long time and was massively impressed by how much greener its become. 

Restoration of degraded landscapes is possible, and not just over very long timescales. If I hadn't just measured my length in a rewetted grough,  I might almost have been whistling a happy tune!

In reply to toad:

Fnarr fnarr... 

In reply to toad:

The contrast between now and the recent past is amazing. I’ve been going onto those moors for over 50 years and where previously what you mainly saw was vast expanses of black sodden peat, in up to your waist at times, now you can walk most of the plateaus in approach shoes and stay mainly dry shod. An amazing turnaround.